@doom12384
But there's a problem with your argument i.e., there is absolutely no data from 1960 or 1970 about average centipawn gaps between players. If such data exists, your whole argument hinges on this data. If such data cannot be provided then your argument fails the evidence test. I find your continual lack of mention of hard arithmetic data a bit frustrating because it's only via such data that the argument can be resolved one way or the other.
One of your major points is that super-GMs of today are simply better chess players as a whole than in Fischer's era. If your centipawn argument held any water the elite would be kind of bunched together at a uniformly high level. However, the FIDE live rating list has enormous gaps just like in 1972. Carlsen is 72 points above Ding in 3rd. Caruana is 43 points above Ding. But the gap from Ding to Wei Yi in 20th place is only 63 points. So why doesn't Carlsen wipe people out like Fischer who had a similar gap in 1972? He's tied his last two championship matches. I think this speaks more about his competition than any failing of Carlsen's.
Here's Chessgames.com's take on Fischer:
"In his prime in 1970 to 1972, Fischer totally dominated the chessworld as no other player ever has, before or since. His incredible 19 straight victories in the Interzonals - Candidates matches of 1970 to 1971, including a wipe-out of two Candidates matches (Taimanov 6 - 0 and Larsen 6 - 0) was such a massive crush of the world's top players that it should have been impossible, save that it actually happened. I believe that this 1969 to 1972 version of Fischer (and the Capablanca of 1916 to 1924) was the strongest human player ever to exist in chess history."
I disagree with those who call the debate "pointless speculation". Look at the data in the quote above!! In Carlsen's entire reign as world champion I doubt he's ever won 5 in a row against elites much less 19. Finally, as an old guy who's been around for a lot of world champions, I find chess in 2020 to be a crashing bore. Too many technical wins and a lack of tactical flourish. Whatever might be said of the skill of super-GMs in 2020, their games are often arid. I'll take the era of Fischer, Tal, Nezhmetdinov, Spassky, and Keres any day over what we have in the chess world right now. Once Kasparov retired, a hell of a lot of "juice" went out of the game. Engines are sterilizing top level chess.
But there's a problem with your argument i.e., there is absolutely no data from 1960 or 1970 about average centipawn gaps between players. If such data exists, your whole argument hinges on this data. If such data cannot be provided then your argument fails the evidence test. I find your continual lack of mention of hard arithmetic data a bit frustrating because it's only via such data that the argument can be resolved one way or the other.
One of your major points is that super-GMs of today are simply better chess players as a whole than in Fischer's era. If your centipawn argument held any water the elite would be kind of bunched together at a uniformly high level. However, the FIDE live rating list has enormous gaps just like in 1972. Carlsen is 72 points above Ding in 3rd. Caruana is 43 points above Ding. But the gap from Ding to Wei Yi in 20th place is only 63 points. So why doesn't Carlsen wipe people out like Fischer who had a similar gap in 1972? He's tied his last two championship matches. I think this speaks more about his competition than any failing of Carlsen's.
Here's Chessgames.com's take on Fischer:
"In his prime in 1970 to 1972, Fischer totally dominated the chessworld as no other player ever has, before or since. His incredible 19 straight victories in the Interzonals - Candidates matches of 1970 to 1971, including a wipe-out of two Candidates matches (Taimanov 6 - 0 and Larsen 6 - 0) was such a massive crush of the world's top players that it should have been impossible, save that it actually happened. I believe that this 1969 to 1972 version of Fischer (and the Capablanca of 1916 to 1924) was the strongest human player ever to exist in chess history."
I disagree with those who call the debate "pointless speculation". Look at the data in the quote above!! In Carlsen's entire reign as world champion I doubt he's ever won 5 in a row against elites much less 19. Finally, as an old guy who's been around for a lot of world champions, I find chess in 2020 to be a crashing bore. Too many technical wins and a lack of tactical flourish. Whatever might be said of the skill of super-GMs in 2020, their games are often arid. I'll take the era of Fischer, Tal, Nezhmetdinov, Spassky, and Keres any day over what we have in the chess world right now. Once Kasparov retired, a hell of a lot of "juice" went out of the game. Engines are sterilizing top level chess.